A global review of disaster reduction initiatives - Welcome to the ...

2Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives72up-to-date methodologies and technologieswere employed. These risk assessments havealso used a multidisciplinary and multi-institutionalapproach in a proactive manner.Examples of these risk assessments areincluded in the box below.Risk assessments undertaken in Fiji have been based ondetailed hazard and vulnerability assessments, integratingthe scientific geological and meteorological (whereapplicable) information with information on the builtenvironment (building stock, infrastructure, critical facilitiesand lifelines) and the natural environment. Moderninternational methodologies have been employed, includingground surveys, remote sensing and GIS mapping.The results and outputs have had major implications inmany practical applications for disaster management,such as in helping to formulate building codes, trainingof emergency services personnel (for example: SuvaEarthquake Risk Scenario Pilot Project, SERMP, forthe City of Suva). They have also had regional significancein that these initiatives are being used as the basisof similar studies in other Pacific Island Countries.Examples of these risk assessments are:• Suva Earthquake Risk Management Scenario PilotProject (SERMP) Undertaken for the City of Suva(1995-1998) and involved an earthquake and tsunamiexercise "SUVEQ 97" (based on SERMP andthe devastating 1953 Suva earthquake and associatedtsunami), and was included in the activities of theUN IDNDR RADIUS programme (CERA,1997a, b).• Taveuni Volcano: Comprehensive study of the potentialfor an eruption which involved international scientists(consultants) with senior Government officialsand infrastructure agencies (Cronin, 1999a, b;Cronin and Kaloumaira, 2000; Cronin and Neall,2000).• Flood Mitigation: Comprehensive studies in knownflood ravaged areas on the Island of Viti Levu (western,northern and south eastern regions) (Yeo, 2000,2001).Methodological challengesWhile hazard mapping and physical aspects ofvulnerability analysis have been substantiallyfacilitated and improved due to the use of GIStechniques, the inclusion of social, economicand environmental variables into GIS’s conceptualmodels, remains as a major methodologicalchallenge. The need to assign a quan-tifiable value to the variables analysed into thespatial models used by GIS is not always possiblefor some social/economic dimensions ofvulnerability – for instance, how to quantify theideological and cultural aspects of vulnerability.Moreover, the diverse scales – individual,family, community, regional – at which differentdimensions of socio-economic vulnerabilityoperate, makes the spatial representationthrough these techniques, very difficult.The quality and detail of the informationrequired by the analysis facilitated by GIS is, inmany cases, inexistent, especially in LDCs andother developing countries. In general, thequality and availability of statistical data setslimit the information for GIS analysis to lowresolution outputs. The use of GIS for vulnerability/capacityanalysis is still at an embryonicstage, in comparison with its wide use in hazardmapping. Several research initiatives areaiming to bring solutions to the currentmethodological constraints, especially thequantification of social aspects of vulnerability.Still, the socio-economic vulnerability assessmentsrely on more conventional ways, whichindeed provide other opportunities and advantages,such as the active involvement of thecommunity at risk in exercises as communitybased mapping and assessments.Generally speaking, the physical aspects of vulnerabilityassessment are tailored from exposureto hazards criteria, providing answers tothe questions of what is vulnerable and whereis it vulnerable. The attempts to assess socioeconomicaspects of vulnerability intend toanswer the questions who is vulnerable, andhow have they become vulnerable. Attributesof groups and individuals, such as socio-economicclass, ethnicity, caste membership, gender,age, physical disability, and religion areamongst the characteristics that have beenlinked to differential vulnerability to hazards.The development of models and conceptualframeworks provided a basis for vulnerabilityanalysis in relation to specific hazards. Pressureand Release, and Access models, presented in themid 1990s (see diagram), provided a goodbasis for the analysis and further identificationof specific vulnerable conditions. These modelslinked dynamic processes at different scales,and different access to resources profiles, withvulnerability conditions.